2
   

Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera

 
 
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 08:54 am
Bush 'wanted to bomb Arab TV station'

Quote:
Downing Street is facing calls to publish a transcript of a conversation in which Tony Blair allegedly persuaded George Bush to drop plans to bomb Arab TV station Al-Jazeera.

According to reports, in a memo Bush said he wanted to attack the TV station in Qatar - a key Middle East ally of the west.

And it allegedly details how Mr Blair argued against an attack on the station's buildings in the capital city of Doha, saying it would lead to retaliation.

Al-Jazeera is well-known for broadcasting videos from Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda followers, a policy which his angered the Bush administration.

The transcript allegedly records a conversation during Mr Blair's visit to the White House on April 16 last year, in the wake of a failed attempt to root out insurgents in the city of Fallujah, in which 30 US Marines died.

Former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle - a leading Labour opponent of the Iraq War - called for the document to be made public.

"I believe that Downing Street ought to publish this memo in the interests of transparency, given that much of the detail appears to be in the public domain," he told the Press Association.

"I think they ought to clarify what exactly happened on this occasion."

A Downing Street spokesman said: "We have got nothing to say about this story. We don't comment on leaked documents."

channel4
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,249 • Replies: 99
No top replies

 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 08:58 am
Repost:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=63986
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 09:02 am
I don't understand what the big deal is here. Bush wanted to bomb a radio station (alledgedly), and after discussing it with Blair, was talked out of it. What's the point?

Seems to me you should be applauding Bush for talking this over and considering the advice of others before acting on his own.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 09:17 am
CoastalRat wrote:
I don't understand what the big deal is here. Bush wanted to bomb a radio station (alledgedly), and after discussing it with Blair, was talked out of it. What's the point?

Seems to me you should be applauding Bush for talking this over and considering the advice of others before acting on his own.


There is no point to these posts. Just more droppings by the birdbrains.

BTW, IMO...he should have.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 09:23 am
You can always tell a factual and well proven piece of journalism when you see the important catchwords/phrases:

allegedly (Used 3 times in the story)

and

According to reports
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 09:29 am
I don't think anyone is necessarily doubting the article Fedral. At least in my case, I just don't understand why any attention is being given to this story. It's not a big deal.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:00 am
Sloshing off this madness is a kind of madness too.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:04 am
Yeah, Blue, whatever. Please explain to me why this is important information that reflects badly on Bush.

I have often told my children that before deciding on a course of action, they should talk it over with someone. This will keep them from doing something they may later regret. Seems like that is what Bush did.

So unless you think Bush should have bombed them, what exactly is the complaint against him in this instance?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:08 am
Even considering such a thing is insane. And Bushie is all that. This reminds me of the PNAC saying that a new Pearl Harbor would help them sell their war plans to the American public. Just considering the benefits of a new Pearl Harbor is nuts. And achieving that new Pearl Harbor on the Bushie/PNAC watch is nuts too.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:10 am
I don't think it necessarily matters that they wanted to bomb the place (in a non-enemy sovereign nation) since in the end they didn't. But what's interesting is that we actually did "accidently" bomb two other al-jazeera offices in Iraq and Afghanistan. People were up in arms saying it was on purpose and we denied it. This report, if true, lends credence to those claims.

That said, obviously taking out media is a strategic move in a war. This not being a conventional nation vs. nation war, however, makes it a bit murky.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:21 am
And that is what I am looking for Freeduck. Cutting and pasting an article is fine, but it sure would be nice if the poster would tell us the significance of the article.

I would agree that it does lend credence to claims that the other offices were not bombed accidently.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:24 am
Well, Rat, maybe it's important because Qatar is an ally of the United States and Bush was thinking of bombing a business on their soil, which they back.

Maybe it's important because Bush repeatedly tells other governments they should support free speech but apparently wants to bomb free speech if what it says isn't something he wants to hear. The words don't seem to match the deeds--or the planned deeds, at least.

Maybe it's important because it's a case of shooting the messenger. Seems like Al-Jazeera reports it like it is, and the other Arab states don't like it either:

http://www.emmabonino.it/press/world/3007

Sometimes the last people you should silence are the ones who're telling you something you don't want to hear.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:33 am
I agree with username's points - in fact, I came here to post this news myself.

I dont agree with FreeDuck that the argument of "taking out media as a strategic move in a war" even comes into play. Its not like it's Saddam's state TV whose targeting Bush was apparently resolved to; it's an independent news provider in a US-friendly state.

And though Al-Jazeera might not be to anyone's specific taste, it is known as the most critical, independent news gatherer in the Middle East, the one station not beholden to one authoritarian government or other. So where would Bush's stern warnings to such governments that they should allow independent media go, if he himself would have bombed Al-Jazeera?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:39 am
There are some who say that Bush was being "humorous" when he said this to Blair, and others who say he was serious.

If in fact Bush was kidding,why is the British government going after the civil servant who leaked the existence of a Downing Street memo on this subject?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:43 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:

If in fact Bush was kidding,why is the British government going after the civil servant who leaked the existence of a Downing Street memo on this subject?


Beacause a leak is a leak.

If someone is willing to leak information, even if it lacks impotance, it shows that they are willing to leak anything.

Security concerns are important.

I don't care if the guy leaked the menu at Tony Blair's dinner party, he must be caught and removed from a position of responsibility because obviously he can't trusted.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:43 am
FreeDuck made valid points imo.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:45 am
but not if it's a leak about an ambassador's wife who's a CIA agent, Fedral?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:46 am
Fedral wrote:

Security concerns are important.

I don't care if the guy leaked the menu at Tony Blair's dinner party, he must be caught and removed from a position of responsibility because obviously he can't trusted.


Well, he is:

Quote:
Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh is accused of passing the memo to Leo O'Connor, who formerly worked for former British MP Tony Clarke. Both Mr. Keogh and Mr. O'Connor are scheduled to appear at London's Bow Street Magistrates Court next week.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, Mr. Keogh was charged with an offence under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act relating to "a damaging disclosure" by a servant of the Crown of information relating to international relations or information obtained from a state other than the United Kingdom.

Mr. O'Connor was charged under section 5, which relates to receiving and disclosing illegally disclosed information.


Quote:
Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister in Mr. Blair's government, called for the document to be made public.

"I think they ought to clarify what exactly happened on this occasion," he said. "If it was the case that President Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera in what is after all a friendly country, it speaks volumes, and it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces."

Sir Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrats, said that, if true, the memo was worrying.

"If true, then this underlines the desperation of the Bush administration as events in Iraq began to spiral out of control," he said. "On this occasion, the Prime Minister may have been successful in averting political disaster, but it shows how dangerous his relationship with President Bush has been."


Quotes from AP and reuters.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:47 am
Username, Walter: I can agree totally with your points. It would have been wrong to bomb their offices. A definate mistake on Bush's part had he done so.

But he didn't. He floated the idea, was probably told by Blair what a bad idea it was, and decided against it. End of story in my book. No big deal. The only possible relavence is to the question of the "accidental" bombing of their other offices in Iraq and Afghanistan.

See how reasonable I can be when people discuss things in an adult manner as opposed to the childish barbs of Blue and others. I could actually get used to that around here.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:50 am
CoastalRat wrote:
And that is what I am looking for Freeduck. Cutting and pasting an article is fine, but it sure would be nice if the poster would tell us the significance of the article.

I would agree that it does lend credence to claims that the other offices were not bombed accidently.


I thought it was obvious CR, well good thing i didnt post a comment, you and afew others have been caught acting dumb and trying to discredit the article, i bet you also think this is ok :

Journalists' perils in Iraq highlighted

Quote:
Journalists' perils in Iraq highlighted
Study says US forces have killed up to 13

By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | November 18, 2005

WASHINGTON -- US military forces in Iraq have killed as many as 13 journalists since the US invasion in 2003, and are currently holding five journalists in detention without charges, press freedom organizations said yesterday.

The groups said Americans are second only to the insurgent forces in killing journalists, raising deadly obstacles for reporters who are trying to do their jobs and inform the public about events in Iraq.

Boston


http://graphics.boston.com:80/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2005/11/18/1132318423_7888.gif
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2021 at 04:01:22